. /.  RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  G/ADP/AHG/R/28 
11 November 2010 
 (10-6029) 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices 
Working Group on Implementation  
 
 
 
SUMMARY REPORT OF THE MEETING OF THE 
WORKING GROUP ON IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 
COMMITTEE ON ANTI-DUMPING PRACTICES 
26 OCTOBER 2010 
 
Note by the Secretariat  
  1. The Working Group on Implementation ("the Group") met in an informal session on 
26 October 2010 and held substantive discussions on three of the topics referred to it by the 
Committee on Anti-Dumping Practices.  The Group adopt ed the agenda for the meeting, which was 
previously circulated as document WTO/AIR/3637 dated 15 October 2010.   
2. The Chairperson, Mr. Adrian Serra (Argen tina), noted that the Group would discuss 
four papers:  two submitted by Korea and New Z ealand on sunset reviews;  and two submitted by 
Egypt, one on constructed export pr ice and one on the accuracy and adequacy test under Article 5.3 of 
the Anti-Dumping Agreement. 
3. The paper submitted by Korea, circulated in document G/ADP/AHG/W/184, had been 
discussed at the Spring 2010 meeting of the Group.  However, some of the questions presented at that 
meeting had not been replied to.  The Kor ean delegate replied to those questions.  
4. The paper submitted by New Zealand, circulated in document G/ADP/AHG/W/185, 
explained how the investigating authorities of New Z ealand conducted sunset revi ews.  The paper first 
identified the legal framework for sunset reviews in New Zealand.  It then explained how the 
authorities made determinations with respect to the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of 
dumping and injury.  In this respect, the paper put emphasis on difficulties encountered in sunset 
reviews where the foreign exporters did not coopera te with the investigating authorities and invited 
Members to explain what their authorities did in such situations.  The paper also explained the 
transparency aspect of sunset reviews under New Ze aland law.  The presentation by the delegation of 
New Zealand was followed by comments and a signifi cant number of questions from other Members.  
Questions primarily focussed on:  procedural aspects of  sunset reviews, particularly with respect to 
publicizing the initiation of a proceeding;  on s unset reviews where new dumping margins were 
calculated, whether the measure was continued to be based on such new margins or on the margins 
from the original investigation;  whether the ma rgins calculated in a sunset review extended to 
exporters that started exporting af ter the imposition of the original measure;  determination of the 
reliability of export prices used to calculate dumping  margins in sunset reviews;  why New Zealand 
used benchmark prices;  analysis of the likelihood of the recurrence of injury;  determination of the 
comparable country where exports from the count ry concerned ceased after the imposition of the 
measure;  submission by the domestic industry of scenarios with respect to its likely financial 
situation in case the measure were lifted;  self initiati on of sunset reviews;  level of evidence required 
to initiate a sunset review based on a complaint; scope of sunset reviews;  the use of prices in 
shipments to third countries in calculating dumping ma rgins in sunset reviews;  verification visits in 
sunset reviews; conduct of sunset reviews in cases th at involved exclusively price undertakings;  use G/ADP/AHG/R/28 
Page 2  
 
  of dumping margins obtained in the underlying origin al investigation;  notice to domestic industry on 
the expiry of existing measures;  determination of  benchmark prices;  reliability of export prices in 
sunset reviews;  calculation of dumping margins in sunset reviews;  assessment of future financial 
performance of domestic producers;  and considera tion of measures in force in third countries in 
analysing export prices to third co untries.  The delegate of New Zealand replied to these questions. 
5. Next, the Group discussed Egypt's paper on constr ucted export price, circulated in document 
G/ADP/AHG/W/186.  The paper first identified the legal framework in Egypt with respect to the 
construction of export price.  It then explained th e investigating authorities' practice in this regard, 
notably with respect to circumstances in which the export price may be constructed and how the 
export price is constructed.  This was followed by comments and questions from Members.  Questions 
focussed mainly on:  separation of reliable and unr eliable export prices;  determination of costs and 
reasonable profits for related parties;  and constr uction of export price where the related party was 
located outside the importing country.  The de legate of Egypt replied to the questions. 
6. Finally, the Group discussed the paper submitted by Egypt on the adequacy and accuracy test 
under Article 5.3 of the Anti-Dumping Agreement, circulated in document G/ADP/AHG/W/187.  The 
paper explained the practice of the Egyptian investig ating authorities in this regard, specifically with 
respect to the adequacy and accuracy of inform ation on:  standing; pr oduct under consideration; 
allegation of dumping and allegation of injury a nd causality.  Many Members made comments and 
asked questions on this paper.  Questions focussed  mainly on:  whether the Egyptian investigating 
authorities requested information on cost of pr oduction and the impact of dumped imports on the 
prices of the domestic industry;  whether the inve stigating authorities verified standing prior to 
initiation;  what was requested from domestic producers that did not have audited financial 
statements;  whether the authorities contacted  all known domestic producers for purposes of 
determining standing;  the standard by which adeq uacy was determined;  whether Egypt considered 
adding a provision to its domestic legislation on  the accuracy and adequacy test;  whether the 
Application Committee of Egypt assisted domestic producers with respect to the filing of the 
complaint;  whether requesting information fro m complainants prior to initiation constituted 
publicising of the application;  and when the no tification obligation under Article 5.5 of the Anti-
Dumping Agreement was fulfilled.  The dele gate of Egypt replied to the questions. 
7. Some Members indicated that they did not have  enough time to fully analyse Egypt's papers 
and that they would come back with more comments and questions at the next meeting.  Taking this 
into consideration, the Chairman stated that Egypt' s papers would appear in the agenda of the Group's 
Spring 2011 meeting.  He also encouraged other Memb ers to submit papers on any of the nine issues 
that were before the Group for discussion.  Those ni ne issues were:  1) Article 2.2 - export prices to 
third countries or constructed normal value, 2) Article 2.4.1 - foreign exchange fluctuations, 
3) Article 13 - judicial, arbitral or administra tive review, 4) "how do Members determine whether 
there has been a significant price undercutting by th e dumped imports? – Article 3.2", 5) Article 2.3 – 
constructed export price, 6) Artic le 3.5 – other known causes of injury, 7) Article 3.7 – threat of 
material injury, 8) Article 5.3 – accuracy and ade quacy test, and 9) Article 11.3 – sunset reviews. 
 
__________